CA - O.J. Simpson & the murders of Nicole Brown, Ron Goldman, 1994 *not guilty*

[kaen]

Does anyone find it extremely odd that since there has been a resurgence of this grizzly murder & trial that this mystery knife suddenly appears since found in 1998?

I don't think it is odd when one considers that the resurgence could cause the value of the knife to rise given the "connection" to the story. All done for a buck, IMHO.

 

[Blondie in Spokane]

Martin Sheen to produce documentary series attempting to show that OJ Simpson is INNOCENT of murdering ex-wife Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman

Martin Sheen is producing a new docuseries that is set to air next year which will show OJ Simpson is innocent

Hard Evidence: O.J. Is Innocent will air on Investigation Discovery and reexamine evidence and also have new interviews with witnesses

It will also look at the idea that the killer may still be at large

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...e-Nicole-Brown-Ron-Goldman.html#ixzz44X0JZK00

 

[Tssiemer]

I feel like this America crime show, while not a documentary, is pretty bad. I'm too young to remember the trial but I feel like the actors are over acting. Really? Ross from friends as Rob K? John Travolta as Rob S? And Cuba gooding Jr is awful as OJ. And whoever plays Marcia Cross cries too much and us too soft spoken.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Tssiemer]

Clark not cross.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[LinasK]

Martin Sheen to produce documentary series attempting to show that OJ Simpson is INNOCENT of murdering ex-wife Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman

Martin Sheen is producing a new docuseries that is set to air next year which will show OJ Simpson is innocent

Hard Evidence: O.J. Is Innocent will air on Investigation Discovery and reexamine evidence and also have new interviews with witnesses

It will also look at the idea that the killer may still be at large

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...e-Nicole-Brown-Ron-Goldman.html#ixzz44X0JZK00

What the H is he thinking??? OJ is Guilty and even wrote a book about it. He was convicted in Civil Court of the deaths. What a waste of time!!! Martin, I'm sorry but I think you've gone off the deep end.

 

[i.b.nora]

What the H is he thinking??? OJ is Guilty and even wrote a book about it. He was convicted in Civil Court of the deaths. What a waste of time!!! Martin, I'm sorry but I think you've gone off the deep end.

I wondered the same thing but now that I have done a little research, and saw a brief segment about the project this morning on the Today Show, I think that Martin is using it as an opportunity to get his son Charlie's career back on track. (Which could also be interpreted as going off the deep end.)

It turns out that the project is based on the 'work' done by Bill Dear, Private Investigator, years and years ago. There is nothing new, it is based on his theory that Jason did it. Dear self published a book in 2001. No legitimate book publisher would publish it at the time due to the libelous nature of the book.

Apparently, The Huffington Post dredged it all up again in 2012, and now here it comes again. According to the excellent article I am providing a link to, it seems that Charlie Sheen became friends with Dear many years ago while Dear was investigating. Thus, my theory is the new docu-series will feature Charlie in some role.

Anyhow, here is the absolutely must read article:

http://www.villagevoice.com/news/bill-dear-is-full-of-it-and-i-can-prove-it-6684433

Bill Dear is Full of It and I Can Prove It
TUESDAY, APRIL 3, 2012 AT 8:41 P.M. BY TONY ORTEGA
The Village Voice

“Back in 2001, a private eye with a history of inserting himself into high-profile cases put out a self-published book with the really strange title of O.J. Is Guilty But Not of Murder. I read the book, interviewed the author, spent some time observing his methods, and then, in a 7,000-word story, tore him a new ******* over his reprehensible way of gathering information to make pure fantasy sound plausible.

Few people took note of either his lame book or my takedown.

But now it's 2012, and Bill Dear has repackaged the same horseshit he was peddling eleven years ago.

The big difference? Well, now there's the Huffington Post.

HuffPo bit hard not only on Dear's repackaging of the same old malarkey, O.J. Is Innocent And I Can Prove It, but also on the man himself, buying his tall tales about how he's the best private investigator who ever lived, and has the only plausible explanation for who killed Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman.

I beg to differ.

In 2001 I was a staff writer at New Times Los Angeles, a newspaper that no longer exists, and whose archives are no longer online. That no doubt benefited Dear, since today's journalists jumping on his story were unaware that he had already tried to sell this bogus story eleven years ago.”​

He includes his entire 2001 New Times article in this 2012 Village Voice article.

And now, here it all comes again!

 

[margarita25]

Knife Found at OJ Simpson’s Former Estate Not Connected to Murder Case, LAPD Confirms“The investigation remains open,” the Los Angeles Police Department tweets

http://www.chron.com/entertainment/...at-OJ-Simpson-s-Former-Estate-Not-7223283.php

"The knife that was found at O.J. Simpson’s former estate is not connected to the murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman, the Los Angeles Police Department has confirmed to TheWrap.

“#LAPD has determined knife has no nexus to Simpson/Goldman murder investigation. The investigation remains open,” the LAPD also*tweeted Friday.

The knife that was discovered was believed to be too small to make the deep wounds suffered by Simpson’s ex-wife and Goldman. According to the*Los Angeles Times, the police department performed numerous forensic tests before they came to their conclusion."

 

[krkrjx]

Martin Sheen claims there is evidence that OJ is innocent of the murders but I have yet to hear what that evidence is and how Sheen obtained it. Was there blood from either victim found elsewhere that would connect someone else? Or DNA evidence from either victim? Or perhaps such forensic evidence that belongs to someone else found at the murder scene? If so, why has this not all come out prior?

There is plenty of evidence that OJ did the crime, none that I have found verified anywhere that might exonerate him. How sad it is to hear that Sheen--a man I have always had a great deal of respect for--seems to have lost his mind.

 

[i.b.nora]

If the topic of OJ Simpson interests you, the new documentary which just aired on TV this past week is a must see. It is a doucumentary, it is not a 'drama'.

While initially liking the first couple of episodes in the FX series, I finally ended up disliking it enormously for a couple of reasons, one being I just could no longer bear to watch Cuba Gooding playing OJ. His portrayal was abysmal, imo. At some point, they started to take what they would call artistic license with the known facts. They didn't need to do that, imo, with what is already a very compelling story. So, while I think I ended up watching the whole series, in the end it was a huge disappointment to me.

When the new documentary first appeared on the scene, I thought, oh brother, here we go again. It's called OJ: Made in America. On TV, it was shown in 5 Parts, the 1st part aired on ABC on Saturday, June 11th, and the other parts aired through the rest of the week on ESPN. It can now be seen if you have access to InDemand, or via the ESPN App. If you use the app, I think it shows up on the ESPN3 Channel.

I highly recommend seeing it. I learned about a few things I previously did not know.

After the fact, I happened upon this article today, which some might want to read:

Everyone Is About To Know Ezra Edelman’s Name
The “O.J.: Made In America” filmmaker discusses his widely anticipated documentary.
04/27/2016 01:41 pm ET | Updated May 15, 2016

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...a-oj-simpson-espn_us_571fb5a2e4b0b49df6a9537c

 

[77DarkHorse7]

Hold onto your hats people, it's about to get wild in here. This is for anybody who still thinks The O.J. Defense team made a valiant effort and were victorious for it:

The O.J. Verdict was STOLEN and I have the proof right here:

I have irrefutable proof that Barry Scheck, legendary DNA quack, completely misrepresented the crime scene to the court and to the jury:

He showed the jury two photos and claimed they were different views of the same crime scene element:




Mr Scheck claimed that a blood drop found on the back gate in early July WAS NOT THERE three weeks earlier. From this he hypothesised that the blood drop was planted by someone intent on framing Mr. Simpson for the crime. From these two photos Barry Scheck hung arguably his most famous soundbite of the whole trial: “Where is it Mr. Fung?” The only problem was that the photo of exhibit 116 was taken of the fence that connected the gate to the house, not the gate itself.

Here’s how the two different parts looked during the investigation:



Now here’s how marker 116 actually fit into the crime scene diagram:




The gate and the fence are shown separately as Item #54 and Item #51 respectively.

Again, look at the second picture above, the gate as shown to Dennis Fung on April 11th 1995. The curved piping on the extreme left hand side coupled with the metal mesh divider WITH THE HEXAGONAL PATTERN is only present on one crime scene element: The gate/door See More Proof (in the comments) Here: http://bit.ly/BScheck

Barry Scheck needs a BS Check

 

[i.b.nora]

Gosh, I don't think of Barry Scheck as a DNA quack. If anything, by his work on the OJ case, he has acheived more to advance the proper use and understanding of DNA in both convicting and in proving innocence than probably anyone else. His Innocence Project is an example of his good work.

While I personally didn't like him much at the end of the OJ trial, I think that some of the work he (and others) did on that trial, forced the improvement of forensic techniques both in Los Angeles and other jurisdictions throughout the country.

Regarding your photos, none of those photos, as nearly as I can tell, are of the back gate. The back gate was at the end of the long walkway at the side of the house that goes out to the short driveway area and the alleyway. (The driveway where Item #52, Photo #117 was located).

It gets confusing because there are Prosecution Item Numbers, as well as Prosecution Photo Numbers and there doesn't seem to be any real correlation between the two. No photo/s of the blood on the back gate were taken the day of all the other crime scene collection photos. Fung screwed up. His screwup wasn't known until July 3rd. Numerous police officers and detectives testified however to seeing the blood on the back gate in the early morning hours of June 13th. Ultimately photo/s were taken of the back gate but I am not sure what the Item and Photo Numbers are.

Anyhow, except for a few months in the beginning, I have thought without equivocation that OJ killed Nicole and Ron.

 

[77DarkHorse7]

Look, I don't know if it was called the back gate at the trial, that's my personal vernacular for the end of the house opposite the garage and the driveway.

It's immaterial, because what can be seen in the trial video is the gate at the BUNDY DRIVE end.

THIS is the photo that was shown to Fung AS he was being asked about drop 116:

View attachment 100492

Here is the photo of Exhibit 116:

View attachment 100493

These are NOT of the same item, and yet Scheck led the court to believe that they were.

I have the video all queued up to the image as it was being shown to Fung, in the COMMENTS SECTION here: http://bit.ly/BScheck
During which Scheck again asks where drop 116 was, knowing it wouldn't be present in the wrong image.

You can tell they are not the same item because the meshes have different patterns:

 

[i.b.nora]

Well, for some reason your attachments 100492 and 100493 are not showing up for me. Are they a repeat from your previous post?

And, is the video at Quora? It doesn't show up for me and I am not inclined to register there just to see it. Why don't you just post the video here?

I think I 'get' what it is you are saying, its just that the photos you are relying on are very confusing to me. The issue I thought with Fung was that he failed to photograph the back gate on the same day as all the other crime scene photos were taken. And that is what Scheck was questioning him about, whether the blood spot/s was there that morning. (It/they were according to trial testimony of 4 or 5 other people. But, you seem to be saying that Scheck showed him two pictures of two different gates or dividers that were at the front that displayed different meshes. Its like, so what? Blood was all over the place in the front.

I am willing to learn more, but I will not sign up at Quora just to be able to see comments and videos there.

 

[77DarkHorse7]

http://bit.ly/2bAEo76

It's simple, Scheck was alleging that blood drop 116 was planted, in order to frame Simpson for the crime.

He tried to show this by displaying two photographs taken weeks apart (One taken in June, one taken in July) that he claimed were photos of the same gate.

The June photo had no visible blood drop in the highlighted area. The July one had a visible blood drop in a location that APPEARED SIMILAR to the June photo's highlighted area.

The jury was meant to infer that the blood drop was planted there in the intervening weeks. And it was very damning, because the Jury was fooled into believing the images were both depicting the same object, and that this proved they were framing him.

However, I have proof that these photos were of two different crime scene objects. NO ONE tampered with this evidence, and Scheck used deception to get the jury to see it the way he wanted them to.

It had nothing to do with neglecting to take a photograph, because Scheck reiterates the point he was trying to make: "It may be that it(the blood drop) got there some time between June 13th and July 3rd"

 

[77DarkHorse7]

Thank you for making me aware of the problems with Quora's comment section. I've updated the answer to include the video for guests to quora.

Here are the attachments that got cut off:

THIS is the photo that was shown to Fung AS he was being asked about drop 116:



Here is the photo of Exhibit 116:

 

[GeeEm]

Aww good stuff DarkHorse!!!

We all know the blanktey, blank, blank did it! OJ SIMPSON a murderer that escaped justice

jmo

 

[LinasK]

http://bit.ly/2bAEo76

It's simple, Scheck was alleging that blood drop 116 was planted, in order to frame Simpson for the crime.

He tried to show this by displaying two photographs taken weeks apart (One taken in June, one taken in July) that he claimed were photos of the same gate.

The June photo had no visible blood drop in the highlighted area. The July one had a visible blood drop in a location that APPEARED SIMILAR to the June photo's highlighted area.

The jury was meant to infer that the blood drop was planted there in the intervening weeks. And it was very damning, because the Jury was fooled into believing the images were both depicting the same object, and that this proved they were framing him.

However, I have proof that these photos were of two different crime scene objects. NO ONE tampered with this evidence, and Scheck used deception to get the jury to see it the way he wanted them to.

It had nothing to do with neglecting to take a photograph, because Scheck reiterates the point he was trying to make: "It may be that it(the blood drop) got there some time between June 13th and July 3rd"

Thank you for finding this Dark Horse. This kind of deception by The "Dream Team" doesn't surprise me in the least. They were masters at it. Two other instances were Carl Douglas changing out all the photos in OJ's house when the jury toured it to make it look like he hung out with black people rather than whites, and having him stop taking his arthritis meds in advance of trying on the gloves, so that his hands were more swollen and wouldn't fit into the gloves (aside from the blood shrinkage).

 

[HastingsChi]

Thank you for finding this Dark Horse. This kind of deception by The "Dream Team" doesn't surprise me in the least. They were masters at it. Two other instances were Carl Douglas changing out all the photos in OJ's house when the jury toured it to make it look like he hung out with black people rather than whites, and having him stop taking his arthritis meds in advance of trying on the gloves, so that his hands were more swollen and wouldn't fit into the gloves (aside from the blood shrinkage).

I'd be thrilled if you might share an actual, credible source for the arthritis meds claim (and no, the guy who booked him for card shows doesn't count). An actual, real source.

Thanks!

 

[HastingsChi]

Look, I don't know if it was called the back gate at the trial, that's my personal vernacular for the end of the house opposite the garage and the driveway.

It's immaterial, because what can be seen in the trial video is the gate at the BUNDY DRIVE end.

THIS is the photo that was shown to Fung AS he was being asked about drop 116:

View attachment 100492

Here is the photo of Exhibit 116:

View attachment 100493

These are NOT of the same item, and yet Scheck led the court to believe that they were.

I have the video all queued up to the image as it was being shown to Fung, in the COMMENTS SECTION here: http://bit.ly/BScheck
During which Scheck again asks where drop 116 was, knowing it wouldn't be present in the wrong image.

You can tell they are not the same item because the meshes have different patterns:

View attachment 100495

So pictures of the front gate (that's what is pictured in the link you shared showing the fence and gate) somehow explain something about the very back gate (your aware there are actually three gates between the front and back of 875 S Bundy; right?).

The "proof" you've shown is just as deceptive as you're alleging Scheck was to the jury.

You may be correct, Scheck may be correct; but until you can provide accurate images to accompany your argument, you've proven nothing.

You're initial post told us to "hold on to your hats" well I'm not "holding my breath" for you to actually make you're case with accurate visuals.

 

[LinasK]

I'd be thrilled if you might share an actual, credible source for the arthritis meds claim (and no, the guy who booked him for card shows doesn't count). An actual, real source.

Thanks!

I don't have a source that you would believe, but someone I do. No- it's not "the guy who booked him for card shows". I don't even know what that means. I heard it from a reputable lawyer friend who was aware of the connection between Ito and Cochran- they'd worked together before, and Ito should have recused himself for that reason.